Ideas for MLS League Design [Superthread] II

Oh, I agree it can and should be quirky. I just didn't see the reason for not just randomly assigning who they got at home and who away from the other conference and then switching the next year. I see your point about the MLS Cup rematch but I think making sure every team gets to every stadium at least every two years is more important.

If everybody plays the same schedule, there's no reason to have 3 conferences. Just have a single table and then do the playoffs from there (or just crown the Supporters Shield winner the champion and dispense with the MLS Cup). Divisions and conferences are to balance teams not having the same schedule, and to have the unbalanced schedule favor less travel.

I like that your playoffs give more of a home field advantage BUT I don't think I like the idea of goal differential possibly determining who moves on to the semifinals. For the World Cup yes, for the MLS Championship? Ehh, I'm lukewarm. But I admit, I wouldn't hate it.

 

Ideally, the math works out so much easier when we finally top out at 24 clubs. At that point, we go to 3 divisions of 8 clubs. Play home and home in conference for 14 matches, and 1 each interdivision, for 16, and 30 total. You simply assign one conference as home vs the second, and reverse it every year. The only point to the top and bottom, is table position becomes important to scheduling, throwing a tiny bone to all those knuckleheads who think MLS is going to die without pro / rel.

 

I refuse to throw them that bone. Pro/rel is just not going to happen.

For 24 teams though, two conference with home and home in conference (2 X 11 = 22 games) plus one game out of conference (1 X 12 = 12 games) for 34 games total. I actually like your idea, but wouldn't the MLS want the two extra home games, extra gate, and thus extra $$$$? Although maybe they would want a smaller schedule to fit around FIFA dates and to add CCL and SL and USOC into the mix without killing teams.

 

Also, not something I've brought up yet, but I'd like to see the MLS actually work with the USL in the future as well as have the MLS develop reserve teams.

24 MLS reserve teams, plus maybe 20 USL teams.
44 teams, divide them among 2 or 3 leagues, and use pro/rel among the USL leagues. It would give the backup players a chance to play some regular soccer, give the USL a pretty solid base of teams so they didn't collapse, and give that many more people a chance to play. Plus by being part of an actual league, the MLS Reserves would actually have a shot at earning some gate (have them play at the club's SSS and schedule home games when the home team isn't there, and give season ticket holders a chance to buy the reserve games for much cheaper prices.). I feel like the Reserve league died because the contracts for those players needed to be paid for by the attendance of the main club, since nobody was going out to watch reserve games but giving it a little bit more of that minor league baseball feel might help.

The only caveat would be to keep the reserve teams out of the USOC, simply because some MLS teams might want to use their reserve teams for that tourney instead of the first team.

I guess I do throw a slight bone to the pro/rel folks, although I'm sure they'll hate not extending it to MLS.

 

So far... The best is...

1. 24 clubs in two conferences.
2. Home and Home in conference and one game out of conference = 34 games
3. Regular season most points in each conference = Conference Champions -> Berth to CCL
4. Inter Conference playoff for MLS Cup Champion -> Berth to CCL

Worry about Pro/Rel later.

 

they don't give to shits about CCL, SL, USOC and Fifa, so I dont think they would in the future. SL needs to die, really. so stupid.

 

I realise it probably won't happen and that people have probably made these arguments before, but pro/rel does add certain elements to the league.

The most obvious is making sure that teams have something to play for which though being perilous makes for a dramatic seasons end.

But the more important issue for me is that the only way you get a team into the league is via expansion. In England, there is the possibility (as unlikely as it may be) that you can form a local club and with the right management and resources climb up the leagues. I mean imagine following a team like Burnley who this year have got back to the top flight for the first time in decades. Even more dramatically, look at teams like FC United (the team formed by Man U fans in protest of the Glazers) or AFC Wimbledon (formed by former Wimbledon FC fans after the team was moved and renamed) who have resources and support enough that they are rapidly tearing up the tiers. Wimbledon, formed in 2002 have gone from the regional leagues up to the first rung of the nationals (the Conference).

Imagine being a Rochester fan and having the opportunity to be promoted into the MLS Eastern Conference alongside the Red Bulls. No need for contrived "Superclassicos", you've got a ton of local rivalries waiting to occur naturally.

One third argument is that with no relegation, what happens when the FO or Coaches do such an awful job that a team is left in dire need of rebuilding. Sure, the team will probably bounce back, but there's something to be said for such a team dropping down a tier. Not only does it offer the potential for a stronger (for example) USL team to come up and make the league itself stronger, it also means that the team in it's rebuilding process isn't sitting rooted to the foot of the league, getting their asses handed to them each week. If they drop down a division, providing they don't suck that badly, they get to rebuild whilst playing against comparable opposition. The relegation itself is no fun, but at least you go into the following season thinking about fighting to go back up rather than knowing it might be another season at least of feeding off scraps.

 

before all of that, all the teams need to have fair stadiums that the teams can control with decent ownership. it's not easy to happen.

 

Yes, let's imagine that.

Rochester wins the USL, and is promoted to MLS.

The benefits are: Rochester fans get to see better teams come to town.

The drawbacks are: Rochester plays in a stadium that seats around 14,000; their average draw now is around 10,000, which means there's not much room for expansion. Unless their owners are willing to come up with a few tens of millions of dollars, they're going to be permanent underdogs--unless of course they go the way of most promoted teams in England and get sent down the very next year.

And that's a best-case scenario. Right now, Rochester is sitting at mid-table; the team at the top of the USL-1 table is the Charleston Battery, which typically draws a few thousand fans to its 5,000-seat stadium. Promote them, and what do you expect them to do? Stay at 5,000 seats and never be able to compete in MLS? Or invest tens of millions of dollars in a stadium that will likely be empty again the next year when they get relegated?

No, actually, there isn't. Not a damn thing. This is an argument against promotion and relegation.

Perennially bottom-feeding or perennial-champion teams are the exception in American team sports, and the rule in countries where promotion and relegation exists.

Look at the Premier League, and tell me it's less predictable than any American sports league. Give me five guesses and I'll tell you who the top four teams in next year's Premier League will be. If you can tell me who will make this year's baseball playoffs, even with the season nearly half over, I'd be surprised.

The way you help a team turn itself around is not to replace it with another team that isn't ready to compete in the top level. It's by offering it tools (revenue sharing, draft preferences, etc.) to help it rebuild. And, for the most part, they do.

In the last five years, twelve teams have finished in one of the top four spots of the NHL, and more teams than that have finished in one of the four bottom slots. At least two teams--Washington and Pittsburgh--have done both.

During the same period in the EPL, five teams have held the top four spots. For the last four years, four teams have held those four spots every year. The bottom of the table doesn't change much, either--year after year, the teams that have been promoted recently cluster at the bottom of the table and then drop off again.

There may be arguments for why America needs promotion and relegation. But the idea that Europe can teach us something about parity and competitiveness isn't one of them.

 

I was being nice about his schedule idea since the post before that I had not been entirely kind about his previous schedule idea. So chill. Not making an argument pro or con SL here, or saying the MLS will def. do something one way or the other. And notice I did say maybe.

 

Pro/Rel should happen... someday...

however, it won't happen near future... It takes time

When it's time to happen...
- MLS should establish some sort of business relationship with USL side.
- Pro/Rel should begin based on certificates - kind of like what Mexicans are currently doing.

Clubs in USL receive eligibility certificates based on certain criterion set forth by MLS such as Stadium, ownership, etc.. Those clubs are eligible to get promoted based on their USL performance.

 

You're thinking too hard. Pro/Rel happens only if FIFA forces MLS to accept it under the threat of losing international certification as the first division for the USA & Canada. Frankly, I really don't understand why the original MLS team owner/operators would ever voluntarily agree to a system in which their own team possibly could be sent down to the minor leagues. Sportsmanship? Fair Play? Honor? If FIFA doesn't force the issue, I would see MLS topping out at 24 teams sometime between 2016-2020. Why would a USA/Canada league which is not one of the top half-dozen leagues in the world ever aspire to get bigger than that? If MLS ever gets to the level of one of the Big Four Europoean leagues, then let us come back and talk about expansion up to 32 teams or Pro/Rel. But, let's not even think about it before then.

Once MLS reaches 24 teams, split the league into two conferences with two divisions in each conference. Each team would play a home and away with all of the teams in its conference and a home and away with all of the teams in one of the divisions in the other conference. That would give MLS a 34 game season. Playoff teams could consist of the first and second place teams in each division. The first place team would have home field advantage in a single elimination first round and would play the second place finisher in the other division in its conference. Winners of the first round would play for the conference title with the winner of the conference championship round going on to the MLS Cup game.

 

Pro/Rel can happen if it makes more business sense to the owners, specially when the fans(customers) demand it. Investment comes with risk. If the owners feel that implementing pro/rel makes the entire league bigger, better, and stronger, they may take the little risk of their team getting relegated. By that time, MLS2 with opportunity for MLS promotion may be better league than current MLS.

I absolutely agree with your 24 team design with little variation(refer to my post on last page), but I see it as Mid-term design (as opposed to ultimate final design). US+Canada is bigger than many of the European countries combined. Why top it with an arbitrary number? I think the final design should somehow incorporate Pro/Rel.

It maybe be too early to talk about pro/rel, yet, but then we'll reach 24 pretty soon, so I think nothing's wrong with brainstorming about that either.

However, I would concentrate on that mid-term design first.

1. 24 clubs in two conferences.
2. Home and Home in conference and one game out of conference = 34 games
3. Regular season most points in each conference = Conference Champions -> Berth to CCL
4. Inter Conference playoff for MLS Cup Champion -> Berth to CCL

I would crown the regular season top performers in each conference as the conference champions and give them CCL Berth. Don't you think they earned it?

 

Totally agreed.

I'm arguing for and against promotion in general, not for next season and not without provision. I threw out Rochester to make the rivalry point. And actually, 14000 is only a few thousand less than the pending expansion teams and some current MLS venues. In Europe teams generally need to meet a certain criteria before being admitted above certain tiers and their stadium is normally one of them. No reason why this couldn't be worked toward.

You could also argue that the additional exposure and likely uplift in revenue from a stint in the MLS would help the team improve. No reason why the draft couldn't continue or that the promoted team couldn't receive a mini expansion draft to improve their ability to compete.

Disagree here. Money and not relegation is the reason why teams struggle to compete with the top four and that situation in the top division in England is a modern phenomon. If you look at the stats for Basketball and Baseball, there is little difference in the spread of titles. Indeed, more than half of the NBA titles are shared between the Lakers and Celtics, with 17 different Champions in 62 years overall. In MLB the modern World Series has seen 45 titles shared between three teams, with the Yankees taking 26 of them. In 106 years there have been 21 Champions.

In the top division in England there have been 23 champions over 120 years, with 49 titles shared between three teams.

The last five years? Come on, every league has eras. Look at the Lakers in the 80's, the Bulls in the 90's, or the runs that Boston have had of winning the league or at least making the finals.

Conversely, while one team getting promoted in England will generally go back down, many don't and plenty are perfectly able to compete with the teams they meet in that League. Look at teams like Portsmouth, Wigan and West Ham who have all been in the lower division recently but have also had solid seasons in the mid to upper-mid table.

The lack of parity is between the top four and again is based on money and is a recent situation. Seven years ago the league was between Man U and Arsenal for a while. Prior to that it was United, Newcastle and/or Blackburn. Liverpool were always either in the mix or on the fringe.

Prior to that, Liverpool were always competing + one, two or three others. Many teams came up over the years and competed, sometimes immediately, sometimes soon after.

I don't recall mentioning it causing parity. I think I've demonstrated though, that it doesn't prevent parity either. Going back to Portsmouth, a decade ago they were nowhere near the Premiership. They've had their struggles but also had seasons where they pushed for Europe. And it's not like the difference in teams coming up are so big. Teams like Leeds, Norwich and Manchester City have all dropped from the Premiership and got relegated again. Yet in Manchester City's case, they came back up in consecutive seasons, so your argument that you're replacing a struggling MLS team with an inferior USL team is not necessarily true.

Speaking as a Galaxy season ticket holder, I've watched them try to rebuild for three years and while my ethics as a supporter means I will continue to be there for my team, it's somewhat depressing to see them fail to compete repeatedly. In England they'd have been relegated last season but now we'd probably be enjoying games in which we can compete for a goal we can achieve.

OK, I'm being a little harsh to LA there - though we struggle, we're doing better than that last comment suggest, but I feel it makes my case.

 

Well, I'm certainly not closed to the idea of pro/rel. It's a curiousity that the Europeans have fashioned a professional sports concept that is far more capitalistic than we have. By comparison, the NFL certainly looks downright socialist by comparison. But, somehow, I just don't see the self-interest that would compel the current MLS owner/operators to adopt pro/rel outside of a possible FIFA demand.

Thanks for the complements! Obviously, MLS is in a far different posture than European, African, and South American leagues in the sense that it spans an entire continent excepting Mexico. Maybe, only the Russians and Chinese have a league that covers so large a geographic area.

 

Another couple of problems with pro/rel would be increased talent dilution (we're now losing our solid middle class of players -- like Troy Perkins to the Scandanavian countries!) and lack of stability in the minor leagues (teams seem to be constantly folding or in danger of collapse at the USL Div. I & II level). Maybe these problems will be cured by time, maybe not.

 

Very good points.

 

Minor League Soccer

Here are some team name ideas for a potential Minor League Soccer (MiLS). The formatting goes like like this: MLS affiliate, AAA, AA, A.

Chicago Fire
Milwaukee Griffins, Peoria Florian SC, Rockford FireDogs

Club Deportivo Chivas USA
Club Deportivo San Diego, Lancaster Antelopes, San Bernardino Rams

Colorado Rapids
Grand Canyon Rapids, Colorado Springs Rafters, Boulder Rivermen

Columbus Crew
Cleveland Cossacks, Toledo Lakemen, Grand Rapids Rovers

D.C. United
Lords of Baltimore, Richmond Generals, Mason-Dixon United

FC Dallas
Oklahoma City Oxen, Tulsa Toros, Midland Bulls

Houston Dynamo
New Orleans Revelers, San Antonio Texians, Austin Energy

Kansas City Wizards
Omaha Sorcerers, Wichita Wizards, Topeka Tempest

Los Angeles Galaxy
Anaheim Orion, Fresno Galactic, Bakersfield Invaders

New England Revolution
Rhode Island Admirals, Springfield Rifles, Maine Schooners

Philadelphia Union
Lehigh Valley Cannons, Wilmington Bluecoats, Lancaster Colonials

Portland Timbers
Las Vegas Vaqueros, Eugene Lumberjacks, Salem Foresters

Red Bull New York
Red Bull Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Red Bull Trenton, Red Bull Long Island

Real Salt Lake
Real Reno, Ogden Monarchs, Orem Highlanders

San Jose Earthquakes
Sacramento Tremors, Stockton Aftershock, Modesto Quakes

Seattle Sounders FC
Tacoma Cascade FC, Everett Northwestern FC, Spokane Sasquatch

Toronto FC
Ottawa Northmen, Hamilton Maple FC, Inter Winnipeg FC

Vancouver Whitecaps FC
Calgary Stallions, Edmonton Barons, Victoria Breakers FC

 

Just found this board, but I've always favored a pro/rel system. I think the best system is just like the Premiership, La Liga, etc.; 20 teams (22 and 24 are even feasible, albeit it makes the season quite long) in one giant pot, and then home and away with every team. However, since America loves a playoff system way too much, a playoff should occur with the top 4 teams (8 is way too much; 6 might be a decent number also). As for rel, bottom two for sure out, with the third to last team playing the third place team in the USL in a home-and-away playoff (a la Bundesliga) to see who is the final team in.

As for the MLS trying to buy the USL or something like that, it's not necessarily needed; all that's needed is an agreement between the two. The Premiership and the Championship are not owned by the same group (EPL is it's own entity, with FA owning the Championship down).

Two cents.

 

Huh. Never thought of that. Makes sense, I suppose.

But for now, I like USL being its own entity. In a lot of areas it's a much better option for soccer fans than MLS; it's smaller, more personal, and CHEAPER to see games. Not to mention, USL teams often get to play MLS and even bigger teams. My MN Thunder played Burnley FC last summer, and they just got promoted to the Prem!

 

Re: Minor League Soccer

Cleveland Cossacks?

hysterical

 

Re: Minor League Soccer

There's already a USL.

 

Re: Minor League Soccer

Lords of Baltimore?

Haha, what? That reminds me of the Lords of Flatbush.

 

Re: Minor League Soccer

We gotta have three different ones for Chicago

Kankakee Kleptos, Gary Muggers, and the Skokie Nazis

Kansas City can have

Springfield Bible Thumpers, Dodge City MeatPackers, Hays Dust Eaters

LA Galaxy can have
Anaheim Orange Crushers, Escondido Pachucos and the Santa Barbara Elite Elites

Columbus gets

Dayton Rust Belters, Cincinnati HateCrime FC, and the Marion Amish Hellraisers

 

Re: Minor League Soccer

yeah...that's what we need....more RedBull teams..